Thank you for creating and moderating the Bulletins and News Discussion Thread. Its highly appreciated

Who says?! I made a new account for the express purpose that I didn’t want to reveal my first month of hexbear’s existence nym, so nyah!

Hehe yeah I create a new account every once in a while too . There was a post the other day that advised to do so and I did. I thought about not logging into this one as you'll probably find cringe shit, but I remember wreckers usually with new accs setting off struggle sessions to alienate new users. Usually it was criticism from a "not lurked enough" perspective. New accs would also try to blend in for a few days and then switching to full reactionary for le epic troll

Just something I learned to keep in mind, because this community is in deed amazing :D

I switched to my day 1 acc, because it's taboo to talk about this sites culture with an account that was created two hours ago @CindyTheSkull.

It’s been a fucking amazing site since its inception

100% agree, I love how there's no downvotes and it created a culture where you can comment without having to fear someone responding in bad faith like on reddit. It definitely made me from 100% lurker to a sporadic poster

I have learned a LOT from this place

As someone who used to browse 4chan and stumbled upon r/cth this is the sanest place I've experienced on the net so far. I was able to purge a lot of reactionary tendencies in myself thanks to this community.

Thank you all for that :fidel-salute:

deleted by creator

We get it you're the one true leftist

The full WSJ article: https://archive.md/pD9A0

Yes! I was thinking about your comments (and that thread you linked) when I read that article! Thank you for your insights!

Thank you :fidel-salute:

It's still paywalled for me. Is there something to watch out for?

I saw this tweet posted here a few days ago https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/70jA7cIbhS.png and I remember people were speculating in the comments whether the SWIFT ban would scare the international bourgeoisie off from the dollar. Wanted to share this article for their validation :stalin-heart:

07

Thank you for sharing. It's very informative! His China takes are pretty hot though (apart from his predictions on conflict areas which mostly stayed true)

:kkkanada:

Carl Zha on sky news defending his depiction of Australian soldiers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWAPb1LWajg

(watch it its really good lol)

The link is pay walled for me. Found this archive link with an older version of this article https://archive.md/Od7rk

The full times article

Reddit Allows Hate Speech to Flourish in Its Global Forums, Moderators Say https://archive.md/aKg9J

The Stalin Interview with Emil Ludwig also touches on this subject https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13a.htm

Ludwig: Marxism denies that personalities play an important role in history. Do you not see any contradiction between the materialist conception of history and the fact that you, after all, do admit the important role played by historical personalities?

Stalin: No, there is no contradiction. Marxism does not deny that prominent personalities play an important role, nor the fact that history is made by people. In The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of Marx you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But of course, people do not make history according to their own fancy or the promptings of their imagination. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made, when that generation was born. And if great people are worth anything at all, it is only to the extent that they correctly understand these conditions and know how to alter them. If they fail to understand these conditions and try to change them according to their own fancies, they will put themselves in a quixotic position. So you will see that precisely according to Marx, people must not be contrasted to conditions. It as people who make history, but they make it only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions they found ready-made, and to the extent that they know how to change those conditions. That, at least, is the way we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years.

Ludwig: Some thirty years ago, when I studied at the university, many German professors, who considered themselves believers in the materialist conception of history, taught us that Marxism denied the role of heroes, the role of heroic personalities in history.

Stalin: They were vulgarisers of Marxism. Marxism never denied the role of heroes. On the contrary, it admits that they play a considerable role, with the provisos that I have just made.

Love how he casually quotes Marx

Ah yes sorry you're absolutely right. I used the term sloppily. I meant it in the way that regular market activity just shifts money from one market participant to another. While the central bank does so money supply when it engages in the market.

Yeah you're right. I mean I just described what the official role of the central bank is and what they are trying to achieve. Not that QE (or the other instruments) are actually working. It's evident that it's not working

The official role of the central bank is to keep the amount of money roughly at the same level as (or actually around 2% higher than ) the amount of goods and services in an economy. Think if there's a pair of shoes that's 50 Dollars there needs to the printed 50 Dollar Bill for you to be able to buy it. It's not an easy task to figure this out. If there's too much money in an economy you'll have inflation, meaning the nominal value of things gets larger and everything get's expensive. When there's more goods than money to spend you have deflation. Liberal theorists say deflation is bad because it would mean having money and not spending it means you'll be able to buy more things as time goes on, which disinsentives spending it for goods, which would slow down demand and production. So that's why they try to balance it.

In liberal theory the central bank has 3 intruments to control the money supply, one of them being quantitative easing. The mechanism involes the central bank buying government bonds and other securites. To pay for this the central bank need to print money and thus increasing the money supply in the economy.

why is it so different from normal open-market operations?

To directly answer the question: Because QE affects money supply, while open-market operations do not. Open-market operations just shift the money from one agent to another.

I'd recommend looking into MMT as it provides a way better understanding of fiscal and monetary policy and shows how all this fuckery is self-imposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sd-ElKMbPI